The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery

LAST DECEMBER, when Tennessee Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she would introduce legislation which would declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional, some people were horrified. Rep. Lynn was specifically targeting the health-care reform legislation that was pending at that time. But the reaction that many people had to her language was not an expression of their support for Obamacare.

Too many Americans hear the terms “states’ rights” or the word “nullification” and immediately think of racial prejudice, Jim Crow laws and school segregation. Honestly, if all I had to rely on was what I remember being taught in public school, I would probably tell you the history of it all went like this:

The theory of nullification was first invented in the 1800s’ by advocates of slavery. They used nullification of tarrifs as a test run in the 1820s. Of course, what they really had in mind was maintaining the institution of slavery against any possible attempt by the federal government to abolish it. Then America fought the Civil War in order to end slavery, but the ideas of states’ rights and nullification were later revived in the 1950s’ by belligerent white southerners in an attempt to block the racial integration of schools. The Civil Rights Movement started and the feds had to step in and force the southern states to treat everyone equally. THE END.

That’s a rough, abbreviated version of the narrative that was handed to me, but it gives you an idea of what many Americans think they know about states’ rights and nullification. Fortunately, thanks to people like Tom Woods, Thomas DiLorenzo, and many others, I know today that this was a gross misrepresentation of the classical liberal states’ rights tradition. Then again, (and it’s not my intention to be prideful here), I’m not like most Americans. And If you’re reading this, you probably aren’t either.

Civic Illiteracy

In 1798, Jefferson and Madison articulated the concepts of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which were passed in response to to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts. But the ideas which support nullification and interposition were actually expressed earlier during the ratifying convention of Virginia by the Federalists themselves!

So should it really come as any surprise that many people in Tennessee recoiled in horror at Rep. Susan Lynn’s comments about nullification? Rep. Mike Turner of Tennessee’s 51st District responded with a sarcastic and condescending comment that probably expressed the sentiment of many Tennessee’s left-liberal elites:

“Susan Lynn is yearning for times gone by,” Turner said. “Maybe we could put the poor people back to sharecropping and slavery and let the people up at the big house have all the nice things. We’ve already had that fight about states’ rights.”

Lynn responded to Turner’s comment by saying:

“I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”

Rep. Turner’s comments resemble some of the incredibly ignorant and / or vicious comments directed against today’s advocates of nullification that frequently appear in the bologoshpere. One particular blogpost I stumbled upon really embodies the either extremely ignorant or wholly deceptive attempt to associate today’s proponents of states’ rights and nullification with segregationists, white supremacists and domestic terrorists:

“Why is it that the extremist teabaggers are not called traitors even though they are basically calling for an overthrow of the democratically elected U.S. government? There latest stunt should seal it. They are calling for a long rejected theory called Nullification, and at least one treasonous..blogger and teabagger is pushing it.”

In 1850, Congress compromised in order to hold the Union together against the divisive issue of slavery. Since the preservation of the Union (Northern control of the South’s economy), rather than the abolition of slavery was foremost in the minds of influential Republican bankers, manufacturers and heads of corporations, this compromise made perfect sense.

Part of this compromise was the passage of more stringent fugitive slave legislation that compelled citizens of all states to assist federal marshals and their deputies with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and brought all trials involving alleged fugitive slaves under federal jurisdiction. It included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape, even by simply giving them food or shelter. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court. The written testimony of the alleged slave’s master, on the other hand, which could be presented to the court by slave hunters, was given preferential treatment.

As would be expected, this new legislation outraged abolitionists, but also angered many citizens who were previously more apathetic. In 1851, 26 people in Syracuse, New York were arrested, charged and tried for freeing a runaway slave named William Henry (aka Jerry) who had been arrested under the Fugitive Slave Act. Among the 26 people tried was a U.S. Senator and the former Governor of New York! In an act of jury nullification, the trial resulted in only one conviction. “Jerry” was hidden in Syracuse for several days until he could safely escape into Canada.

The government of Wisconsin went even further and in 1854 officially declared the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional. The events that lead up to this monumental decision, which is a milestone in the history of the states’ rights tradition, is one of the best stories most Americans have never heard.

“Terribly conflicted about race, Americans struggled mightily with a revolutionary heritage that sanctified liberty but also brooked compromise with slavery. Nevertheless, as The Rescue of Joshua Glover demonstrates, they maintained the principle that the people themselves were the last defenders of constitutional liberty…”

Joshua Glover was a slave in Missouri who managed to escape from his master. In 1854, with the help of the Underground Railroad, he made his way north, all the way to Wisconsin. There he found work at a mill in Racine, a community in which anti-slavery sentiment ran high. Unfortunately for Glover, his former master, B.S. Garland eventually managed to find out where Glover had taken up residence.

Accompanied by two US Marshals, the three of them took Glover by surprise. In spite of his resistance, Glover was subdued with a club and handcuffed. Thrown into a wagon, he was surreptitiously transported to Milwaukee, where he was thrown in jail. Glover’s abduction was discovered somehow or another, however, and in no time one hundred or so men landed by boat in Milwaukee.

The men marched towards the courthouse, which was adjacent to the jail, and crowds of people began to join their ranks or follow along as spectators. An abolitionist named Sherman Booth, who published a local daily newspaper there called the “Free Soil Democrat” rallied the supporters of the citizen army shouting:

“All freemen who are opposed to being made slaves or slave-catchers turn out to a meeting in the courthouse square at 2 o’clock!”

When the meeting at the courthouse adjourned, those who had assembled eventually resolved that Joshua Glover was entitled to at least two things: A writ of habeas corpus and a trial by jury. A local judge concurred and delivered the writ to the US Marshals at the jail. As might be expected, the federal officers rejected the writ as invalid. After all, federal law trumps state judicial authority, does it not?

The assembly of citizens from Racine and Milwaukee must have decided that such was not the case in this instance. In fearless defiance, they broke down the doors of the jail and freed Joshua Glover. In an act that probably would have filled Sheriff Mack with joy, had he been there, the Racine County Sheriff arrested Glover’s former slave master and the two US Marshals who had kidnapped him. They were charged with assault and put jail. In the meantime, the Underground Railroad assisted Joshua Glover as he crossed the border into Canada.

Although Glover escaped to freedom, it was not without a price. Glover’s former master, B.S. Garland was released on a writ of habeas corpus and in the long run would sue Sherman Booth, turning him financially upside down.

In the short run, Booth and two other men were arrested and indicted by a grand jury. While Booth maintained that he had never incited the crowd to liberate Glover or that had helped Glover escape in any way, he did not mince words either. Speaking in his own defense in front of the US Commissioner, he proclaimed:

“..I sympathize with the rescuers of Glover and rejoice at his escape. I rejoice that, in the first attempt of the slave-hunters to convert our jail into a slave-pen and our citizens into slave-catchers, they have signally failed, and that it has been decided by the spontaneous uprising and sovereign voice of the people, that no human being can be dragged into bondage from Milwaukee.”

According to his account of these events, Henry E. Legler wrote in 1898:

“Byron Paine made an argument in behalf of Booth that attracted attention all over the country. It was printed in pamphlet form and circulated on the streets of Boston by the thousands. Charles Sumner and Wendell Phillips wrote the author letters of hearty approval and commended his force of logic and able presentation of argument. This pamphlet is now excessively rare; but half a dozen copies are now known to exist.”

Judge Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made the following declaration, that ought to inspire and motivate champions of the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty today. Speaking not only for Wisconsin, but of all the states, he said that they would never accept the idea that:

“..an officer of the United States, armed with process to arrest a fugitive from service, is clothed with entire immunity from state authority; to commit whatever crime or outrage against the laws of the state; that their own high prerogative writ of habeas corpus shall be annulled, their authority defied, their officers resisted, the process of their own courts contemned, their territory invaded by federal force, the houses of their citizens searched, the sanctuary or their homes invaded, their streets and public places made the scenes of tumultuous and armed violence, and state sovereignty succumb–paralyzed and aghast–before the process of an officer unknown to the constitution and irresponsible to its sanctions. At least, such shall not become the degradation of Wisconsin, without meeting as stern remonstrance and resistance as I may be able to interpose, so long as her people impose upon me the duty of guarding their rights and liberties, and maintaining the dignity and sovereignty of their state.”

The United States Supreme court eventually reversed the action of the Wisconsin’s courts. Booth and one other man accused of helping to liberate Joshua Glover were found guilty. Both spent months in jail in addition to having to pay stiff fines. This was the price that was paid for Joshua Glover’s freedom.

Wisconsin Historical Marker

Rather than being deterred, however, Wisconsin, along with several other states, such as Connecticut (1854), Rhode Island (1854), Massachusetts (1855), Michigan (1855), Maine (1855 and 1857), and Kansas (1858) all went on to pass even more personal liberty legislation designed to neutralize federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

It was no coincidence that the 1859 statement of the Wisconsin Supreme Court borrowed words directly from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:

“Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, that the principle and construction contended for by the party which now rules in the councils of the nation, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers; that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infractions; and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done or attempted to be done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

The End, or Just the Beginning?

Signpost up ahead

Few Americans have ever heard the heroic story of how the people of Wisconson and several other states stood up to the federal government’s tyrannical, unconstitutional slave laws with the help of their elected state officials.

Today state sovereignty and the Principles of 1798 are being invoked again, for a variety of reasons, just as they were invoked for a variety of reasons all throughout American history, in spite of what you may have been taught or are being told today.

States legislatures all over the Union today are standing up and re-asserting their sovereignty, which is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment. They are proposing and passing legislation which would nullify a whole host of unconstitutional federal laws including: The federally mandated national “REAL ID” card, restrictions on the use of Medical Marijuana, unconstitutional deployments of State National Guard units, federally mandated health insurance, unconstitutional regulations of state manufactured firearms and much more…

It is tragic that left-liberals have seemingly abandoned the classical liberal states’ rights tradition in favor of nationalism and the centralization of power. It is also shameful that they have made a concerted effort to associate nullification with slavery in the minds of average Americans. As Josh Eboch, State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center observes:

“Of course, even though activists on the left supported nullification for Real ID and also for medical marijuana, those calling for state sovereignty with regard to health care will have to deal with the standard cries of racism and references to the Jim Crow…But just because nullification was used [unsuccessfully] in the past to deny rights to certain groups doesn’t mean it can’t be used to regain our rights today. In the end, ‘for desperate people whose freedoms are being systematically usurped by all three federal branches and both political parties, nullification may be the key to restoring our republic’.”

We are African Americans seeking repatriation to our ancestral homeland in West Africa which is outlined on our web site, http://www.thenewunitedrepublic.com. We are looking for partnership with African Americans who also seek to repatriate to West Africa. Please understand that with the beauty of repatriation, we cannot follow the practices of Muslims, Christians or Jews or so-called Black Hebrew Israelites. We have a teleconference every Saturday from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m., at 3:30 p.m. we take questions. We love for our people what we love for ourselves, and as such we look for intelligent dialogue concerning religion, and historical truths that have been hidden from the masses of people both Black and White. We are not Militant and nor do we hate America, for as you can see our Leader is a combat decorated Marine veteran who loves America, however we seek what was taken from us of worth, Our Land! President Lincoln wanted as a part of his Emancipation Proclamation, repatriation of African Americans willing to leave America for their original place of Domicile.
Abraham Lincoln: The Great Emancipator a Historical Perspective

“On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers, the first time a delegation of their race was invited to the White House on a matter of public policy. The President made no effort to engage in conversation with the visitors, who were bluntly informed that they had been invited to listen. Lincoln did not mince words, but candidly told the group: 61

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

Historians recorded that, “Lincoln re-affirmed his strong support for gradual emancipation coupled with resettlement in his second annual message to Congress of December 1, 1862. On this occasion he used the word deportation. So serious was he about his plan that he proposed a draft Constitutional Amendment to give it the greatest legal sanction possible. Lincoln told Congress: 99 I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization”.

On September 18 during a debate at Charleston, Illinois before a crowd of 15,000, Lincoln declared: 18” I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. Lincoln continued: “I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.”

We believe that President Lincoln was not a racist, nor a bigot. President Lincoln was a realist, a man of great foresight and integrity with a vision that we share, Repatriation and Restoration of African Americans willing to resettle their ancestral homeland in West Africa, called The New United Republic. We are asking for the support of every American citizen to bring about this blessing for America!

Disclaimer: The New United Republic (NUR) is an African-American organization that wishes to repatriate back to our ancestral Homeland in West Africa. We are not a cult, nor are we Christians, Muslims, Black Hebrew Israelites or Black Jews. We are patriotic Americans who love America and our fellow Americans of all ethnicity. However, we long to return to our ancestral place of Domicile in the land of our forefathers. We desire for ourselves what other Liberty loving people have; a democratic nation-state. We follow the Law of the Torah (No Talmud or Mishnah) as ordered in the Qur’an, and the Qur’an (No Hadiths, No Islam or No Sharia). We follow the Religion of Noah called Haniifaa (The Upright One), Al-Hanifiyyah (The Upright Way) as ordered in the Qur’an.

Please contact us, we are willing to address any group which has as it’s central theme Repatriation of African Americans. We have relocated from our headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, to the Washington, DC Metro area to get the message out about this movement. We recently spoke at a gathering of the Moorish Science Community in Washington, DC, although we do not agree with their position on religion, we believe that it is of critical importance to engage each other in debate and conversation.

The FBI has always been a tool of political suppression. WHEN THE FBI came out with a report on Hillary Clinton weeks before the 2016 election, Democrats were livid. But so were Republicans… The report said that even though she had committed a crime by negligently using a personal computer for state business, she would not be […]

by T.R. Bennington AS EVER, BUT ESPECIALLY in our present state of civilizational malaise, there is a need for figures with the power to inspire — men who in less confused and cynical times would have been unabashedly described as heroic. One such figure is Corporal John Alan Coey, a young soldier who has perhaps […]

“DOES the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?” If you answered the latter, you’re among a quarter of Americans who also got it wrong, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation. A survey of 2,200 people that was released Friday revealed some alarming truths about […]

Categories

Archives

Pages

Login / Register / RSS

by Jim Tully; from The American Mercury, September, 1928; transcribed by Kevin I. Slaughter THE jail room was thirty-five feet long, twenty-five feet wide, and seven feet high. In this large cage were fifty prisoners. Some had been sentenced and were serving jail terms; others awaited trial, or removal to the penitentiary. The floor was of […]

Multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” and the dissolution of nations by Peter Goodchild THE CORROSION of Western civilization can be seen in a group of interrelated political events, as exemplified in Canada, my own country: multiculturalism, globalism, “open borders,” the dissolution of nations, my concerns especially since the period of 2008 to 2011, when I was in […]

by Bradford L. Huie for The American Mercury TODAY WE PRESENT THE FINAL installment of our audio book series based on the biography of William Luther Pierce, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds by Robert S. Griffin, read by Vanessa Neubauer. (ILLUSTRATION: Portrait of Dr. William L. Pierce by S.M. Casper) Click here for all […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury IS IT POSSIBLE that the Jewish community — namely, the same forces that launched the massive public relations campaign portraying Leo Frank as an innocent victim of “anti-Semitism” — had a hand in murdering him? If not, then why did the Jewish-owned New York Times (the flagship of […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury WHO LYNCHED Leo Frank? The culpability is often laid at the feet of a “mob” in the popular literature that promotes the Establishment’s narrative of the case. But was it a mob? How many “mobs” consist of the leading citizens of the community? How many “mobs” have as […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury WAS THERE REALLY an anti-Jewish and anti-Frank “mob atmosphere” at Leo Frank’s trial, as Frank partisans have alleged? If there was, then how did Mrs. Frank get away with calling Prosecutor Dorsey a “Gentile dog” in open court, and then suffer no consequences whatever? Why did such a […]

THE AMERICAN MERCURY and the Leo Frank Case Research Library and others working for a balanced, truthful account of the Leo Frank case have a request for any of our readers and correspondents within driving distance of Marietta, Georgia: Please attend the re-dedication ceremony of the Leo Frank lynching marker tomorrow, Thursday, August 23, at […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury THE CRIMINAL ACTS of the Leo Frank forces as they attempted to get a new trial for their client — or invalidate the results of the original trial — are so numerous, so outrageous, so obvious, and so egregious that — once you hear about them in this […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury TO HEAR the attacks made on the character of James Conley — a major witness against Leo Frank when Frank was tried for murdering a 13-year-old girl in his employ, Mary Phagan — you could easily be forgiven for assuming that you were hearing a speech from a […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury ALMOST THE ENTIRE pro-Leo Frank narrative is dependent on one claim: that Prosecutor Hugh Dorsey fabricated James Conley’s story (or edited and embellished a story made up by Conley) and then coached him to deliver it skillfully on the witness stand. If Conley’s story was not fiction, and […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury THE “Hang the Jew” hoax — the claim that “anti-Semitic mobs” stood outside the courtroom during the 1913 Atlanta murder trial of Leo Frank, shouting “hang the Jew or we’ll hang you” or the like and thereby intimidating the jury — was demolished during our audio book segment […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury JEWISH WRITERS on the Leo Frank case have made some astounding claims about the “atmosphere of anti-Semitism” during the trial of B’nai B’rith official Leo Frank for the strangulation sex murder of his 13-year-old employee, Mary Phagan, in 1913 Atlanta. There were, we are told, “anti-Semitic” mobs (yes, […]

by Philip St. Raymond for The American Mercury THE PROSECUTION in the Leo Frank case never mentioned the word “Jew” until it was brought up by the defense — and lead prosecutor Hugh Dorsey had a long history of friendly relations and close collaboration with Jews throughout his life and career. So the accusation, common today […]